Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

I have them on BluRay too. The Searchers high definition transfer is stunning.

Very nice indeed...

All my best with your recovery.

+1

Grain and noise are both artifacts and both are bad.

That is incorrect...

Not really incorrect or correct. Sometimes the director calls for a grainy look and if it's intended then I guess it's okay but other times it simply looks bad.

No... the statement I quoted above is incorrect.

If fleckrj stated that they do not care for a grainy look, that would be a correct statement.

While budgetary constraints do pop into the picture from time to time, film stocks are picked knowing very well what amount of grain the film will or will not have. In other words, it's almost ALWAYS an intended look...

Not really incorrect or correct. Sometimes the director calls for a grainy look and if it's intended then I guess it's okay but other times it simply looks bad.!

Film has grain. The biggest issue is when they over DNR it, and a lot of the natural texture is removed. You can end up with a waxy look if it's overdone. There's no reason to remove grain, it's part of film.

Film has grain. The biggest issue is when they over DNR it, and a lot of the natural texture is removed. You can end up with a waxy look if it's overdone. There's no reason to remove grain, it's part of film.

Good point. A really good re-mastering of original or restored film takes an artist. Too much grain removal creates excess softness in the whole picture; too little, or too much sharpening of the image, creates an exaggeration of the grain inherent in the original.

Grain, though, was largely a not-wanted side effect of the existing technology, and the best directors and cinematographers knew how to work around it, sometimes using it purposefully to good effect.

I haven't watch TCM HD a lot, but the few times i turned it on, old movie or not, it looked pretty good. I only saw letter-boxing at the bottom/top of the screen because the movie aired was one that was in 1.35:1 format.

[Disclaimer] The definition of "soon" is based solely on DirecTV's interpretation of the word, and all similarities with dictionary definitions of the word "soon" are purely coincidental and should not be interpreted as a time frame that will come to pass within a reasonable amount of time.

I haven't watch TCM HD a lot, but the few times i turned it on, old movie or not, it looked pretty good. I only saw letter-boxing at the bottom/top of the screen because the movie aired was one that was in 1.35:1 format.

Typo? 2.35:1?

I have seen some not great PQ on TCM HD but then I looked at the SD channel. Yikes! Some really messy stuff.

Most has been good to very good. Forbidden Planet was very, very good.

If fleckrj stated that they do not care for a grainy look, that would be a correct statement.

While budgetary constraints do pop into the picture from time to time, film stocks are picked knowing very well what amount of grain the film will or will not have. In other words, it's almost ALWAYS an intended look...

~Alan

That grain is an analog artifact is a correct statement.

Whether it was added intentionally or not depends, in part, on when the movie was made.

Early B&W and early color film (not Technicolor, which was processed from three strips of B&W film, but real color film) had much more grain than modern film does. When movies were made and grainy film was the only thing that was available, I would argue that the artifact was not intended - it was just the best that could have been done with the technology that was available at the time.

Intentionally distorting an image can be an artistic decision (remember the color shifts in "South Pacific"), but in most old movies, grain is there by default - not by intent.

I didn't think anything was windowboxed (black bars on all 4 sides) on TCM-HD? Is he maybe still watching the SD channel?

Older movies shot in 1.33:1 (or lower than 1.78:1) should be shown pillarboxed (black bars on the 2 sides).

Newer movies shot in 2.35:1 (or anything larger than 1.78:1) should be shown letterboxed (black bars on the top and bottom).

Sometimes when I reflect back on all the beer I drink I feel ashamed. Then I look into the glass and think about the workers in the brewery and all of their hopes and dreams. If I didn’t drink this beer, they might be out of work and their dreams would be shattered. Then I say to myself, "It is better that I drink this beer and let their dreams come true than be selfish and worry about my liver."
-by Jack Handy

Whether it was added intentionally or not depends, in part, on when the movie was made.

Early B&W and early color film (not Technicolor, which was processed from three strips of B&W film, but real color film) had much more grain than modern film does. When movies were made and grainy film was the only thing that was available, I would argue that the artifact was not intended - it was just the best that could have been done with the technology that was available at the time.

Intentionally distorting an image can be an artistic decision (remember the color shifts in "South Pacific"), but in most old movies, grain is there by default - not by intent.

If the Director, DP, etc. were to make the same film today, and had more modern film stock to choose from, it's very possible they might choose a film with a finer grain. I'm not arguing that...

However, they made the film when they did, and they had what they had. I'm bad at analogies, but that's almost like someone back in the 60's complaining that they'd love their brand new Corvette, but it doesn't have a six-disc CD changer, keyless entry, and navigation system.

I've seen some examples of Blu-ray in which the time and care was put into the film to clean up the elements of unwanted noise (trash, marks, etc.) and dial down the grain, and the finished product was amazing, and I've seen films in which the picture was completely ruined.

The picture quality is a good improvement, although it's definitely a little bit soft.

The movies are upconverted... hence the softness.

They are window boxed so that they are formatted properly. Any other view of those that are that way is massaging the picture away from OAR.

I didn't think anything was windowboxed (black bars on all 4 sides) on TCM-HD? Is he maybe still watching the SD channel?

Older movies shot in 1.33:1 (or lower than 1.78:1) should be shown pillarboxed (black bars on the 2 sides).

Newer movies shot in 2.35:1 (or anything larger than 1.78:1) should be shown letterboxed (black bars on the top and bottom).

I think I've seen a few movies that had tiny black bars on the side as well as the top on widescreen films, and a few with tiny black bars on the top. I wouldn't refer to these as windowboxed though. I figured it was either small discrepancies in the film sizes, or most likely, TCM allowing a little wiggle room for those with overscan issues.

Are you saying they are showing HD mastered content? I have yet to find anything that says they do.

I've had it on pretty consistently for over two weeks now, and I have yet to see anything HD, so I'm thinking that harsh doesn't really follow TCM-HD closely.

EDIT: I realized after Hoosier205's post, that while I think harsh spoke incorrectly, he's technically correct in that the odds are good that whatever sources TCM is using for most of their programming is indeed HD mastered content (many of these films' DVDs were downconverted from HD masters, and we can pretty safely assume that TCM is using a superior source than DVDs).

I've had it on pretty consistently for over two weeks now, and I have yet to see anything HD, so I'm thinking that harsh doesn't really follow TCM-HD closely.

EDIT: I realized after Hoosier205's post, that while I think harsh spoke incorrectly, he's technically correct in that the odds are good that whatever sources TCM is using for most of their programming is indeed HD mastered content (many of these films' DVDs were downconverted from HD masters, and we can pretty safely assume that TCM is using a superior source than DVDs).